Climate Change III - The Power of Chaos

[Varysblackfyre321]

The anti-empiricist nature of the right will get humanity killed.

 

[Heartofice]

30 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The anti-empiricist nature of the right will get humanity killed.

 

Wait.. Omar is on the right now?!

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Wait.. Omar is on the right now?!

No.

Are you honestly  under the notion that theocratic fascist Matt Walsh is reasonable in arguing it’s impossible for people to know global temperature before we started measuring it?

Or is this just more an instinctive response to defend a far right culture warrior?

I honestly don’t know which would be worse.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Heartofice]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No.

Are you honestly  under the notion that theocratic fascist Matt Walsh is reasonable in arguing it’s impossible for people to know global temperature before we started measuring them?

Or is this just more an instinctive response to defend a far right culture warrior?

I don't know, can you get a record of the temperature of every single day going back 120,000 years. I'm asking you.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Heartofice said:

I don't know,

I feel if I continue onward we’ll simply divulge from the level of progress we attained.

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

can you get a record of the temperature of every single day going back 120,000 years

The anti-empiricist nature of the right will get humanity killed.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I feel if I continue onward we’ll simply divulge from the level of progress we attained.

The anti-empiricist nature of the right will get humanity killed.

No answer to that then. 
 

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No answer to that then. 
 

Yeah I expected to get no answer from you.  since you’ve admitted to your reluctance at answering my reasonable questions I forgive you though.

 

I should have assumed your response to be a mixture—an instinctive jerk to defend a far right culture warrior, and a bafflement at the idea of scientists being able to gleam global temperatures before they started measuring such things.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah I expected to get no answer from you.  since you’ve admitted to your reluctance at answering my reasonable questions I forgive you though.

 

I should have assumed your response to be a mixture—an instinctive jerk to defend a far right culture warrior, and a bafflement at the idea of scientists being able to gleam global temperatures before they started measuring such things.

 

I mean its you who posted up Omar's twitter post, that got massively ratio'd and community noted to oblivion. 

So do you think we can get precise daily records of temperatures from 120,000 years ago?

[Ran]

It's comparing apples to oranges. The information we have for 120,000 years ago is basically at a geological scale, with broad signals interpreted to synthesize averages that represent an average over decades, even centuries, with a high probability of certainty. But averages are made up of many numbers, and some can be high, some can be low, and presently we don't actually know what the hottest day has been in 120,000 years.

It's fair to say that this July has very likely been among the hottest months in 120,000 years, though, I think. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Ran

[IFR]

25 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mean its you who posted up Omar's twitter post, that got massively ratio'd and community noted to oblivion. 

So do you think we can get precise daily records of temperatures from 120,000 years ago?

This is a fair question to ask sincerely. Not, of course, in the way that Matt Walsh asked, which is a disingenuous attempt to draw doubt on the legitimacy of the science of global warming. He could easily have consulted a climatologist on this matter, but instead decided to make it a political issue on twitter.

This is clearly a pantomime and Matt Walsh - a man whom all evidence indicates is cursed with a regrettably subnormal intellect - doesn't actually care about science itself and whether it is rigorously true. He would in all likelihood joyously embrace any science that declared "white the superior race" without any scrutiny. Because his polemics matter, not science.

But as a genuine question, this deserves a response. One should always be able to understand the science. 

There are a few things that lead to the statement that this is the warmest period in 120,000 years.

First we examine the past eight years, which have been the warmest since active record keeping began.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/past-eight-years-confirmed-be-eight-warmest-record#:~:text=The warmest eight years have,contributed to record global temperatures.

Then we use proxy data, such as indirect historical data, corals, pollen, tree rings, ice cores, caves, etc., to collect temperature information on distantly antecedent periods.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/what-are-proxy-data#:~:text=These proxy data are preserved,lake sediments%2C and historical data.

Then we evaluate our knowledge from what data we've collected to compare different periods. For instance, we know the last period that was warmer than now was the last interglacial period, which was 118,000 to 125,000 years ago.

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-scientists-sea-years-results.html

At any rate, whether we pedantically determine whether we absolutely know the temperature of every day in the last 120,000 years is a purely disingenuous question. It doesn't matter. The trend matters. The trend is more evidence to join the already overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Edited July 18, 2023 by IFR

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, IFR said:

At any rate, whether we pedantically determine whether we absolutely know the temperature of every day in the last 120,000 years is a purely disingenuous question. It doesn't matter. The trend matters. The trend is more evidence to join the already overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Well except Omar is the one who says that we can determine the date of every day for the last 120,000 years. 

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well except Omar is the one who says that we can determine the date of every day for the last 120,000 years. 

She's just (stupidly) going off of the headlines, which are making the most outrageous claim possible based on some sliver of truth. Once you read the rest of the reporting, its all very hedged by the climate scientists as "likely" or "probably" or what have you, but that doesn't suit newspapers.

Repeating untrue statements just opens one up to disingenuous arguments from the likes of Walsh, who obviously wants to paint the whole of climate science as invalid, so personally I think climate activists and politicians in particular should try to stick to being accurate when making narrow and specific claims.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Ran

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

She's just (stupidly) going off of the headlines, which are making the most outrageous claim possible based on some sliver of truth. Once you read the rest of the reporting, its all very hedged by the climate scientists as "likely" or "probably" or what have you, but that doesn't suit newspapers.

I’ll concede reporting on science could be rather shoddy.

Where a headline could read “We beat cancer!” and the article could just be about something completely mundane like a new technology to catch cancer.

 

But here with Omar’s comments it does just seem the blowback was largely rejection of it being possible to gleam things about the environment that far back and trying to use pedantry to brush off the severity of climate change—

Its not that dissimilar to the old “if global warming is a thing why is x place experiencing record levels of cold!”

Or Ken Ham’s “Were you there?” response when dismissing macro-evolution.  Should note few of the qts of Omar’s  where flat-out creationists.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Week]

An unfortunate overstatement that is directionally correct. Of course, any less than unimpeachable assertions coming from the Left, and Ilhan Omar in particular, will get the bad faith artists and reactionaries to "well ackshuley" us to death. The situation is serious enough that we don't need to give any shred of daylight for gaslighters to mock. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Week

[The Anti-Targ]

It's always the playbook to try to make the debate about trivial elements of an argument instead of the substantial core of the clear evidence about what is happening. You can only really argue that climate data going back 120,000 years ago does not support the current global warming scientific narrative if you believe the universe didn't exist 120,000 years ago.

If you believe the universe didn't exist 120,000 years ago then we don't have a lot we can meaningfully talk about in just about any area of science.

[Zorral]

Funny, you know, that 'ignorant, uneducated farmers' believe in climate change, right?

Facing a Future of Drought, Spain Turns to Medieval Solutions and ‘Ancient Wisdom’
Acequias, a network of water channels created by the Moors over 1,000 years ago, are being excavated and brought back to life to adapt to the crises of climate change.

The photos are stunning. Long piece, particularly of interest to those for whom Spain, its people and history are of perpetual interest.  Not to mention how farmers are trying to cope with climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/world/europe/spain-drought-acequias.html?

 

[Mentat]

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Funny, you know, that 'ignorant, uneducated farmers' believe in climate change, right?

While farmer's landlore is undeniable, Spain (Europe, even) currently has agriculture and green policies at conflict right now. Green policies aim to preserve land and water from agriculture (which is often predatory with ecosystems), while farmers want to keep on making a living and criticize the government for not investing enough in renewing old (and often very inefficient) watering infrastructures and for not protecting their business margins from retailers who push the prices down as much as they can.

In my home region of the Valencian Community, one of the first measures of the right - far right coalition that has just got into power has been to make a climate change denialist from VOX (the far right party) regional councilor for agriculture.

In Andalusia, the right wing government has been trying to pass a law that will legalise fields in the proximity of Doñana National Park. Conservationists say this will further endanger the wetlands, that are already in a critical situation for lack of water.

[Luzifer's right hand]

I come from a farmers family and you can't compare small scale farming that spans generations to industrial agriculture.

Most people involved on the profit side of industrial agriculture that is based on maximizing short term profits do not care if fertile land is destroyed and water reserves are depleted. They do not care about humans either and most people working in such areas are migrants who work under really shitty conditions(de facto slavery in some cases with passports being taken and ties to organized crime).

Edited July 19, 2023 by Luzifer's right hand

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

I come from a farmers family and you can't compare small scale farming that spans generations to industrial agriculture.

Most people involved on the profit side of industrial agriculture that is based on maximizing short term profits do not care if fertile land is destroyed and water reserves are depleted. They do not care about humans either and most people working in such areas are migrants who work under really shitty conditions(de facto slavery in some cases with passports being taken and ties to organized crime).

So do I.  The land practices that were gospel when I was a young child, religiously taught and imbibed since the Dustbowl and the Great Depression, suddenly all went poof.  Like, almost overnight.  It happened as grandparents generation retired and their kids took over, and more and more they sold/leased/rented the land and worked in professions.  They did not live on the farms.

Well, I too didn't live on the farm and I too work in the professions.  

[The Anti-Targ]

The smallholder farmer as good steward of the environment is a bit of a myth. It's just that they are individually too small to notice what harm they are doing until you measure environmental damage across a large number of farmers. Individual farmers will vary in the quality of and commitment to environmental stewardship, but as a collective group they are not bastions of virtue. When farming has free reign to choose how it deals with its natural environment some farmers will do what's easy and convenient for them in the moment, other farmers will do what's best for the environment, and most will fall somewhere in between. Take plastic waste, for example, some farmers will burn or thoughtlessly discard it, others will dispose of it in a way they think is good waste management, others will do the research to find out what best practice is for plastic waste, but not look to minimise or eliminate use of plastic, and others will put in place an elimination strategy and either achieve it or get very close to it.

If I throw a small plastic container into my fireplace to get it out of sight, out of mind the environmental effect is negligible, if I do it daily its less negligible but still less than a rounding error on global emissions and dioxin pollution. If everyone does it daily it becomes a measurable environmental harm.